Oh, for crying out loud. As if we don't already have enough intellectual feces being spread around there is this: Dinosaur gases 'warmed the Earth'. And found in what has been considered the premiere science journal. And this is what passes for science today? give me a Break!

These geniuses forget that all the methane that came out the dinosaur's asses, was not created out of thin air. Obviously it came from plants that drew same out of the atmosphere earlier. This is like that article on Keynesian Superstition where stimuluses are nothing more than drawing a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it into the shallow end. And they expect things to change?

Plants don't eat methane, John. Some plants such as rice produce methane. Dinos must have been numerous as the sheer number of fossils suggests, and they were large. Methane is removed from the atmosphere only by hydroxide molecules, they crack and turn it into CO2. The idea isn't bad.

The orbit of the earth around the sun changes over time, every 100,000 years the ellipse is most elongated, the earth furthest from the sun. This is caused by the gravitational pull of the planets. The tilt of the earth towards the sun also changes in cycles of about 25,000 years. When those two conspire, earth furthest from the sun, and the winter in the north at its longest, ice ages started in the past many times over. Maybe we can put the issue to rest, and you provide some figures where we are within those cycles.

Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.

Backed off?? I don't think so. More like gave up. Gave up because you posted the same damn graph that I had already addressed 3 times in 4 consecutive posts. I learned a long time ago that when you start idiotically repeating yourself over and over again that you don't know what your talking about and are just repeating another denialist lie.

And now to add some more lunacy to the 'Climate Change'/AGW madness that just keeps seeping into what is supposed to be saneness, there is this gem: Nearly one-tenth of hemisphere's mammals unlikely to outrun climate change. And there is one word in this title which shows the fact that our Sandra Hines person here is blatantly lying, and knows it. She uses the 'plausible deniability' principle with the word "unlikely". When this prophecy does not come true, she will be use it to wiggle out of the blame.

But if there is any chance of this occurring, then all of the ice ages the planet has been coming in and out of for the last 2.5-3 million years should have managed to do in the majority of species already. Say What...............?

Quote:A safe haven could be out of reach for 9 percent of the Western Hemisphere's mammals, and as much as 40 percent in certain regions, because the animals just won't move swiftly enough to outpace climate change. For the past decade scientists have outlined new areas suitable for mammals likely to be displaced as climate change first makes their current habitat inhospitable, then unlivable. For the first time a new study considers whether mammals will actually be able to move to those new areas before they are overrun by climate change. Carrie Schloss, University of Washington research analyst in environmental and forest sciences, is lead author of the paper out online the week of May 14 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"We underestimate the vulnerability of mammals to climate change when we look at projections of areas with suitable climate but we don't also include the ability of mammals to move, or disperse, to the new areas," Schloss said.

Indeed, more than half of the species scientists have in the past projected could expand their ranges in the face of climate change will, instead, see their ranges contract because the animals won't be able to expand into new areas fast enough, said co-author Josh Lawler, UW associate professor of environmental and forest sciences.

In particular, many of the hemisphere's species of primates – including tamarins, spider monkeys, marmosets and howler monkeys, some of which are already considered threatened or endangered – will be hard-pressed to outpace climate change, as are the group of species that includes shrews and moles. Winners of the climate change race are likely to come from carnivores like coyotes and wolves, the group that includes deer and caribou, and one that includes armadillos and anteaters.

Backed off?? I don't think so. More like gave up. Gave up because you posted the same damn graph that I had already addressed 3 times in 4 consecutive posts. I learned a long time ago that when you start idiotically repeating yourself over and over again that you don't know what your talking about and are just repeating another denialist lie.

Quote:So What?? You keep making a big deal about this like it proves or disproves something. IT DOESN'T!! All it really shows is that global warming isn't always going to be consistent.

It is a big deal and the noted warmist Dr. Jones was the one who supported the chart by link to his interview I posted that irrefutably showed strong similarities of all the short warming trends since the 1850's AND the latest one that does NOT show any accelerating increase in the warming trend.

The warming trends are very CONSISTENT with each other in the last 150 years.This means you are wrong as usual.

Your next reply in the thread is revealing for your feeble backtracking by trying to come up with a fact less face saving excuse to avoid replying to ANY of my postings you have clearly avoided:

Quote:Backed off?? I don't think so. More like gave up. Gave up because you posted the same damn graph that I had already addressed 3 times in 4 consecutive posts. I learned a long time ago that when you start idiotically repeating yourself over and over again that you don't know what your talking about and are just repeating another denialist lie.

You gave up because you KNOW you can't make a decent counter to any of them.You KNOW you can't contradict Dr. Jones and YOU can't contradict the chart temperature data because they were based on Dr. Jones temperature data.

Therefore you come up with your crappy attempt to back out with your pathetic excuse to avoid replying to the chart again.

In your stupid attempt to cover your babbling is the fact that my subsequent postings explained why you are mistaken and silly.

Third time I talked about the chart you never disputed factually showed that you failed to get the point about very similar warming trends and I further pushed that point with the latest warming trend from late 1970's to early 2012.The trend remains the same as ALL the previous ones in the last 150 years.

It flatly contradicts the stupid warmist arguments of an accelerating warming trend that are demonstrably LIES!

Fourth time I showed at post # 736 To make you look dumb because you stated:

Quote:I see 2 out of 3 temperature records showing a slight warming trend. And this "flatness" has been happening for just 14 years. This is way to short of a time period to declare that global warming is over.

and this:

Quote: What is misleading about it? Do you just not like it because it doesn't show the all important "flatness" of the last few years? This is just 1 of many different ways that one can look at the numbers and still see the warming trend. You denialists can't really do this. All you can do is compare all recent temps to just 1998.

and the chart you never factually dispute says you are insane because what you wrote is actually a cooler level of warming trend than the ones shown in the chart.

Yeah, isn't that all interesting? It actually confirms my thinking, even without having to waste more government funds.

I love the two different titles they give for both sides. But I'm surprised at their surprise, in learning how a better scientific education tends to result in more skepticism.

I really do find that puzzling. I'm saying this because for the past century pointy headed Leftists have been intentionally dumbing down the education system in order to create dumb masses, capable of swallowing all the Collectivist idiocy being crammed down so many throats. So why would they not expect the opposite when people increase their education base?

Remember, John, it is possible to dumb down the masses, but the brightest people discover early on that they must educate themselves to learn. Most teachers are not as intelligent as their students, on average, but lead their classes by being one step ahead with a lesson plan. If the lesson plan is corrupted, that is what the teacher teaches, and what the students are forced to listen to. Those who exceed the lesson plan are truly in the driver seat, because they can audit the content of the curriculum and get it right.